I read elsewhere that this strain is less deadly than previous strains. I'm no epidemiologist but being less deadly could allow it to spread further, which is obviously concerning.

Also, the article says surveillance picked up the spread late. I wonder if the US's pulling back from the WHO and other international functions had anything to do with this, it used to make up a big chunk of its resources and staff.

▲

JumpCrisscross 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> read elsewhere that this strain is less deadly than previous strains

"Case fatality rates in the past two [Bundibugyo virus disease] outbreaks, reported in Uganda and in DRC in 2007 and 2012, have ranged from approximately 30% to 50%" [1]. Given "as of 15 May, a total of 246 suspected cases and 80 deaths" were reported, the current disease's 33% fatality rate is in the historic range.

[1] https://www.who.int/emergencies/disease-outbreak-news/item/2...

▲

whynotmaybe 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It's been picked up late because it's from Goma, a region in Congo currently operated by the March 23 Movement a "rebel" group against the current Congo's government.

	▲	sofixa 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		To expand on this, it's universally accepted that they're a group backed by Rwanda, and are there for the resources that the DRC has, which are being trafficked to Rwanda for export.

▲

BLKNSLVR 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I was wondering about that with the hantavirus, whereby if it's got a higher fatality rate then it's less likely to be easily transmitted.

Is that like a general rule, or pure bunk? (I'd probably assume the answer 'depends').

▲

fpaf 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

From COVID-era discussions (when virologists were briefly the stars of every talk show) I remember one explaining that it was less about fatality rates per se and more about the length of time you could carry the virus around and be nearly asymptomatic while still able to infect others.

I understand the jury is still out on whether a virus can be considered "alive" but, like us, it is capable of replicating itself and mutating. In that sense, it benefits from the same evolution strategies as more complex beings: a strain that gets its host very sick very quickly gets a lower chance to spread to a new host and multiply.

This creates an evolutionary advantage for strains of that virus that are less aggressive or at least develop the worst symptoms more slowly and more covertly.

▲

cogman10 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Yeah. HIV is a good example of this. Without treatment, it is deadly pretty much 100% of the time. However, it takes a long time after the shut down of the immune system before a systematic infection takes over and kills you.

That allowed for a deadly disease that's somewhat hard to spread (mostly just through sex) to ultimately go on a rampage.

▲

AbstractH24 an hour ago | parent [-]

I never thought about this.

So without concern for the humans with HIV* there an argument to be made that treating symptoms without curing made it spread more?

*obviously, this is just hypothetical. It’s important to care about the life of those with HIV. No banish them all to something like a leper-colony. Although it explains the logic for those at the time they existed better than a religious one did.

▲

cogman10 an hour ago | parent | next [-]

HIV specifically targets the immune system. There's no way to just treat the symptoms.

The treatments we have now also decrease the risk of spread significantly.

It's a bit like the chickenpox. Once infected, you always have chickenpox ready to burst out in the future as shingles. But for the most part, it's dormant and you aren't infectious.

HIV treatment does the same. It doesn't clear your body of HIV, but it does decrease the HIV load to such low levels that it can be undetectable. That, in turn, decreases the likelihood you'll spread it.

▲

AbstractH24 an hour ago | parent [-]

These are relatively recent advances. But for the longest time wasn’t that case.

	▲	cogman10 17 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		HIV has only really been known for ~40 years. And for at least 10 to 15 of those years research into treatment was limited and stigmatized as it was considered a "gay disease". The modern treatment regime was developed around 2010. That is, about 15 years. I'd argue that with the timeline of the disease that's not recent. What's become more recent is the mass availability of treatment and the significantly reduced cost of treatment.

▲

marcosdumay an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

> So without concern for the humans with HIV* there an argument to be made that treating symptoms without curing made it spread more?

No, because HIV treatment is about killing the virus, and we don't have any that only treats the symptoms.

But there is an argument like that for the flu and colds.

▲

bookofjoe 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

>I understand the jury is still out on whether a virus can be considered "alive"

I remember way back in med school in the mid-70s our infectious disease professor asking this same question, in a philosophical as much as a mechanistic sense.

▲

RobotToaster 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I don't think it's just fatality rate, but also how long it takes to kill you. HIV is a great example of a disease that (untreated) has near 100% mortality rate, but can spread because it takes years to kill you.

	▲	mlinhares 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The real issue with HIV is that you can easily spread it before being symptomatic, so far we haven’t seen hantavirus spreading before folks become symptomatic. The strain that spreads through humans has been active in south America for a while as well and hasn’t really gone anywhere yet.

▲

jimberlage 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Plague, Inc (an iOS game where you control the parameters of a pandemic and try to get a 100% infection rate) will give you a really good feel for the math behind this.

The most successful strategy is to make a virus that spreads fast, with few visible symptoms until the late stages of the disease. A deadly virus, early will just cause borders to be locked and the international research community to swarm on a cure.

	▲	leptons 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		If AIDS were airborne, I think we'de have a fraction of the billions currently living today. It takes a while for symptoms to show up, there is still no real cure, and drugs to keep it supressed took many years to develop.

▲

alamortsubite 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Definitely, but the hantavirus incubation period ranges from 1-8 weeks after exposure.

▲

microtonal 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Also worrying that the existing approved vaccine does not protect against this variant.

That said I'm quite hopeful, since there is a vaccine for other strains.

▲

antonvs 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[flagged]

▲

picsao 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The WHO is just another politically subverted organization. It declared covid for half an eternity as not airborne. If its connected with a loos of face or economic short term losses- many actors will put the pressur on to prevent the declaration of an pandemic or other travell restrictions.

The us is not involved in this mess.

	▲	JumpCrisscross 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> us is not involved in this mess If by not involved you mean still massively subject to the public health and econonomic consequences of a containment failure, then sure.

▲

mentalgear 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It figures: Right before the COVID-19 outbreak, Trump dismantled the White House pandemic response team and pushed to downsize the CDC—later pulling out of the WHO entirely. A new Trump term, a new pandemic?

▲

mschuster91 4 hours ago | parent [-]

In this case I'd guess the DOGE cuts to foreign aid are a massive, massive contributor to the problem. A lot of third-world countries heavily relied on USAID et al to keep basic sanitation and healthcare going.

▲

rob_c 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

how about countries with these risks take action to reduce these risks. I'm sure there's a parable about teaching someone to fish rather than feeding them

▲

JumpCrisscross 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> sure there's a parable about teaching someone to fish rather than feeding them

This is less about feeding a neighbor than digging them a latrine so they stop crapping in your water supply.

	▲	drstewart an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Wow, why hasn't world leader China and progressive Europe stepped up to make up the difference? Don't they care about their own safety? They should be tripling funding to the WHO. This lies directly at their feet.

▲

toast0 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

USAID provided funding for a lot of stuff, but specifically with regards to infectious disease control, providing funding for infectious disease control in countries that don't have the resources or priorities to do it on their own addresses the risk that such diseases are not controlled and spread to the US and also the risk that such diseases spread and result in (negative) economic impact for the US.

The disease control interventions really are a mix of teaching and doing. In acute situations, experts are brought in to do (some of) the things. But mostly it's training and outreach and supplying equipment to do routine disease control and surveillance of issues that need help.

▲

disantlor 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

theres also one about pennywise, pound foolish

▲

throw1234567891 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If them not fishing means your people are at risk, you go and teach them to fish.

▲

mschuster91 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> how about countries with these risks take action to reduce these risks

With what money? There's a reason they're dependent on USAID.

> I'm sure there's a parable about teaching someone to fish rather than feeding them

Unfortunately the priorities of USAID (and European foreign aid as well) aren't exactly aligned with that paradigm. It's the worst expressed in agriculture because we just dumped our excess production on Africa to keep our prices stable, but foreign aid being sustainable is a relatively new and not really widespread requirement.

▲

malfist 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

How callously you blame the victims. Remember your humanity.

▲

lejalv 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

▲

mystraline 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Let me make this clear:

To hell with your historical collective guilt machine.

I honestly dont care what people did before I was born. I had absolutely no decision in anything of theirs. Had no choice in any of that. Nor did I enslave or torture or murder people. My parents didnt either. Their parents didnt either.

And somehow, Im responsible for shit that happened hundreds of years ago? Whatever.

I dont mind helping and working collectively for a human cause. But im also not going to be an emotional collective guilt tampon because people before I was born did bad things.

Id say "Take it up with them", but theyre dead. Thats why you flail at anybody and try to make them feel responsible.

▲

beej71 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Not feeling guilty and not caring are two radically different things in this context.

▲

mystraline an hour ago | parent [-]

First, there are no charges against me.

I will not answer to idiocy like "your bloodline X generations back".

I am not feeling guilty simply because I am not guilty.

And I do not feel guilty about historical happenings I did not have a hand in. They are things to read about to understand how we got here. But caring? No. More like dispassionate historical context.

I fight against shit like "Collective Historical Guilt". Liberals here in the USA use this crap, like in worthless land akcnowldgements but do absolutely nothing.

Ive also seen a lot of republican and MAGA types also have their 'white' ethnicity weaponized. Its obvious when 1 side blames you on a demographic you cant change (skin color). You vote against them.

I will never support collective guilt/punishment. And I will not 'care' about some historical wrongs.

▲

lejalv an hour ago | parent [-]

Let's say you likely benefit from the side effects. It's not guilt, but just a lil reminder we are all in this together.

Also, we could talk about current colonialism: arms trade, mining, mercenary armies.

Sure enough, if you close your eyes hard enough you can pretend your wealth is well earned and unrelated the ills of the world.

It's rarely the case.

	▲	mystraline an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Thats thats the root of this shit. Im forced to engage in this system of capitalism. I am not a capitalist. My political power is 1 vote, aka basically nothing. Because Im forced to engage, Im somehow responsible for the horrors others do. I absolutely reject this absurd line of thought. Do I try to limit damage on voluntary things I do? Absolutely. Do I also try to help where help is wanted? Yes, I do. Thats also being a good human to fellow humans. You mention: arms trade, mining, mercenary armies. Ive never traded weapons. I dont even own any guns. Mining? Im in the process of rewilding my property back to more forest. Im also getting rid of invasives previous owners planted (english ivy, etm). And thanfulky, Im not a mercernary army. Ffs, really? I have absolutely 0 sway on any of these topics. And I wont ever. Im not a politician, whose votes really do count. > Sure enough, if you close your eyes hard enough you can pretend your wealth is well earned and unrelated the ills of the world. I guess youre one of those types that because I might identify as "white" thats im a millionaire or otherwise abuse people at scale to make billions. Protip: im not. Most of the jobs I worked was in food service or factory work. And all your accusatory platitudes are as deep as a porta-potty. And yeah, there is no ethical consumption in capitalism. Its all exploitation, at every scale and measure. Dont have a whole lot of choices about it. Cry harder.

▲

zzzeek an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

They are. This is why the billionaire tech class is complacent in this disaster. Musk is already a mass murderer due his illegal sabotage of USAID (estimates of 600000 deaths already [1]) this new outbreak adds to his death toll.

[1] https://www.newyorker.com/culture/the-new-yorker-documentary...